the integration of problem-based learning and problem ... - CiteSeerX

Session F3E THE INTEGRATION OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEMSOLVING TOOLS TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTS Robert S. Friedman1 and Fadi P. Deek 2

Abstract—Discussions of pedagogy and instructional design often entail their impact upon the cognitive systems of learners, knowledge transfer, and efforts to organize, facilitate and evaluate learning activities (Bloom, 1956; Mayer, 1983; Gagné, 1985; Gagné, 1988; Bransford and Vye, 1989; Gagné and Merrill, 1990; Gagné, Briggs, and Wager, 1992; Mayer, 1996; Greeno, Collins, and Resnick, 1996; Bransford and Schwartz, 1999). Learning systems have, over the past twenty years, undergone a demonstrable shift in focus from those based in instructivist theory and approaches (logical positivism and identifiable/fixed truth) to constructivist concepts (knowledge as a social construction) and practices, particularly as they take shape in the activities comprising problem-based learning (PBL) (Barrows, 1980, 1992, 1994). A technological one has accompanied this pedagogical shift. The Internet has made possible a transformation and increase in the methods of implementing the best practices and reaching greater numbers of potential learners through systems of distributed education. This paper examines how the design and implementation of problem solving tools used in programming instruction are complementary with both the fundamental theories of problem-based learning (PBL) and the pedagogy and practices of distributed education environments. A discussion of how such learning tools can be used to bridge the constructivist foundation of PBL with the needs of distributed education is suggested. We then consider how combining PBL, web-based distributed education and a problem solving environment (Deek, 1997) can create effective learning environments in a variety of disciplines and modes. Index Terms —constructivism, distributed learning environments, instructional design, problem-based learning, problem-solving tools.

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTIVISM Grabinger (1995, p. 667) summarizes the differences between "old" and "new" assumptions about learning, offering a concise set of distinctions that contrast instructivist and constructivist approaches to learning. Whereas the “old” school posits that, “People transfer learning with ease by learning abstract and decontextualized concepts,” the “new” school of thought would have it that “People transfer learning with difficulty, needing both content and context learning.” In the past, learners were thought to be “receivers of knowledge.” Now, “Learners are active constructors of knowledge.” Behavior, in the stimulus and response sense of the word, as the primary vehicle for learning is an old assumption, whereas cognition “in a constant state of growth and evolution” is the new assumption. Over 30 years ago, Canada's McMaster University’s School of Medicine began a program of instruction that was “student-centered [and] problem-based, [in which] smallgroup learning took shape” (Camp , 1996). This is the core of problem-based learning, a pedagogy that Savery and Duffy (1995) describe as adhering to the following four tenets: • • • •

Understanding is based on experiences with content, context, and the learner’s goals . Cognition may be regarded as being distributed rather than individually localized. Puzzlement is the factor that motivates learning. Social negotiation and the ongoing testing of the viability of existing concepts in the face of personal

1

Information Technology Program, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102 [email protected] College of Computing Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07012 [email protected] Acknowledgment: This work was supported in part by the New Jersey Information-Technology Opportunities for the Workforce, Education and Research (NJ I-TOWER) Project funded by the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education (contract # 01-801020-02). 2

0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA17 32 nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F3E-17

Session F3E experience are the principle forces involved in the evolution of knowledge (Greening, 1998, 1-2). These tenets give rise to Savery and Duffy’s (1995) "instructional principles": • Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem. • Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task. • Design an authentic task. • Design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning. • Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution. • Design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner's thinking. • Encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts. • Provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learned and the learning process (32-34). These fundamentals are relativistic and by definition opposed to the tenets of logical positivistic thought. Moreover, PBL is opposed to instructivist pedagogy and “other views of knowledge [that] would expect students to be told the ‘truth’ about what is known about science and medicine, as is done in many lecture settings, and that, because they have been told it, they would all then have the same knowledge and understanding of the content” (Camp , 1996, 3). She describes PBL as being "active, adult-oriented, problem centered, student-centered, collaborative, interdisciplinary, utiliz[ing] small groups and operat[ing] in a clinical context" (Camp , 1996, 4). Robbs and Merideth (1994) find several advantages to PBL modes of learning that can be generalized to disciplines other than medicine. • •

An increased retention of information; The development of an integrated (rather than discipline-bound) knowledge base; • An encouragement toward life-long learning; • A greater exposure to clinical experience and at an earlier stage in the curriculum; • An increased student-staff liaison; and, • An increase in overall motivation (Greening 1998, 2). There are detractors, however. Courses built on the lecture model, where students sit in large lecture halls ostensibly to assimilate a lecturer's discourse continue to thrive in even the most modern of academic settings (cf. Kember and Gow, 1994; Kenley, 1995). This top-down model of dissemination of knowledge, from the instructivist point of view, takes form in textbooks and in the lecture, where an established expert retains a privileged position of power by centering the instructional activity on him- or herself.

There is a literature rich in its testament to the success of PBL in science education (Koschmann, et al., 1997; Kamin, et al., 1999), beginning in medical education but expanding into other ill-structured and complex disciplines (Koschmann, 1995). If this literature is any indication, PBL has established itself as an instructional design platform that will reshape future learning modalities. Walton and Matthews (1987, p. 544) articulate PBL methods and corresponding "assets" as they apply to medical education, the pioneering discipline in PBL. Their overview is easily transferable to other disciplines such as computer programming and English composition (see Deek, Deek and Friedman, 1999 and Friedman, Deek and Deek, 2000).

DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Just as PBL practices and constructivist philosophies have taken on more currency with contemporary instructional designers and faculty, distributed education, whether through synchronous modes of content delivery or asynchronous learning networks, has also grown in terms of popularity with student cohorts and faculty, technological sophistication, its use in non-traditional academic settings, also accruing --as PBL and constructivist pedagogy has, into general acceptance as an inevitable direction for education. The many varieties of distributed education now offer large numbers of geographically dispersed students instant access to information, courses, need-to-know learning alternatives and accredited degrees. However, while distributed education could not have taken its present shapes or force without the ubiquity of computer software and hardware to support communication, dissemination of multimedia information and instruction, the disciplines that investigate computing – comp uter science, information systems, software engineering and human-computer interaction, for example, have yet to fully adopt or endorse either distributed education or PBL. Aside from important sociological issues of access to and use of technology, many teachers, instructional designers and cognitive theorists differ over whether computer technologies are driving pedagogy more than pedagogy is suggesting research and development of new technologies to enhance students’ learning processes and skills. A review of the findings of several leading researchers in web-based distributed education suggests that, although we are clearly in need of more research, they are generally in favor of strategies that incorporate technology into an environment that is both student-centered and organized in a format that promotes PBL strategies and philosophies. Hiltz (1997) provides an overview of asynchronous learning environments that would seem to be the best of all possible educational worlds: The fact that the educational process is asynchronous means students may engage in more reflective thinking before having to answer or discuss issues,


Session F3E as compared to a synchronous or same-time interaction, and it also means that students can participate at their own convenience, and thus better fit the demands of a college degree program into busy lives. Working in such an environment requires a series of best practices providing "the means to create the feeling of a true 'class' or group of people who are learning together, and by structuring and supporting a carefully planned series of collaborative learning activities which constitute the assignments for the course" (Hiltz, 1997). Hiltz shares with Johnson and Johnson (1975), and Dillenberg and Schneider (1995), the belief that collaborative learning is "a learning process that emphasizes group or cooperative efforts among faculty and students. It stresses active participation and interaction on the part of both students and instructors. Knowledge is viewed as a social construct, and therefore the educational process is facilitated by social interaction in an environment that facilitates peer interaction, evaluation and cooperation" (Hiltz, 1997). One can easily see the overlap between Hiltz's approach and PBL philosophies, which steep students in an active and authentic environment where there is little-to-no top-down structure. While some distributed education practitioners would support a virtual replication of the classroom through the use of a videotape component, Bourne (1997) would call that the technological equivalent of a "sage on a stage" approach to teaching. The argument for the virtual classroom derives from a concern for effective collaboration as the heart of a beneficial learning experience. In a modification of what PBL theorists would term the establishment of a learning issue, Hiltz implements methods in which "the students become the teachers. Individuals or small groups of students are responsible for making a selection of a topic; reading material not assigned to the rest of the class; preparing a written summary for the class of the most important ideas in the material; and leading a discussion on the topic or material for which they are responsible." (Hiltz, 1997) This practice has it cognates in PBL activities and constructivist philosophies. Selfexplanation and internalization provide an opportunity for what Koschmann (1997) finds as "a crucial moment in the Problem-Based Learning method. Its success … relies in part on the ability of group members to assess not only the accuracy, but also their relative uncertainty, about what they know" (6). Kamin et al. (1999) designed a prototype study at the University of Colorado School of Medicine "to support medical students' learning of national pediatric curricular objectives, regardless of their clinical location and variable patient exposure" (1). Combining a PBL model with video and asynchronous distance learning technologies, their project was "designed to investigate the use of technology to support learning in a problem-based curriculum" (6). Like Hiltz, they combined video, for its ability to foster cognitive and behavioral modeling, with web-based communication, allowing "students and faculty to participate asynchronously and choose the best time to work" (3). Faculty played the

role of facilitator, "an important one to assure a meaningful discussion as well as provide cohesiveness to a virtual group" (4). Kamin's group employed video and computer conferencing in a way that Jonassen and Reeves (1995) would refer to as cognitive tools, "technologies, tangible or intangible, that enhance the cognitive powers of human beings during thinking, problem solving, and learning" (693). SOLVEIT (Deek, 1997), a problem solving environment that will be described shortly, falls into the domain of cognitive tools rather than a traditional instructional technology, as in software that "constrains" students' learning processes through prescribed communications and interactions" (694). SOLVEIT goes a step beyond, as students use it as a "cognitive tool to organize, restructure, represent and express what we know" (694-695). SOLVEIT engages and supports learners through the entire problem solving process, diminishing what Jonassen and Reeves (1995) find to be "the primary conclusion of programming research: that the cognitive overhead (the amount of mental effort required to use programming languages) mitigates the ability of the learner to use computer programming as an easy and effective means for solving problems or representing what the learner knows, which is the goal of using cognitive tools in the first place" (702). Wegner (1999), moving past already identified negative areas of concern in dis tributed learning, such as "Lack of technological expertise on the part of both teacher and student, resistance to change on the part of faculty, student passivity, hardware limitations and learner isolation” juxtaposed a traditional face-to-face group using instructivist methodologies with an experimental group studying the same material but using a PBL approach with synchronous distant learning tools and methods. Although his samples were too small to yield statistically significant results, his study suggests a few benefits to PBL design combined with Internet-based methods as an educational design strategy. Wegner’s experimental group commented positively ‘in four main areas: Practicality/Performance-based, Technology, Group Processes and Convenience. The authentic, performance-based nature of the class was seen as the biggest positive as indicated by the high response rate (71%) of the experimental group. Interestingly, 36% of the experimental group cited the opportunity to solve problems, use consensus building skills, exercise autonomous learning as a group and communications skill as competencies gained over what they normally would get through traditional instructional delivery models ” (104). Wegner believes that instruction on the Internet "accentuates the 'student as worker' and the 'teacher as coach' paradigms" (104). This is in concordance with early and current PBL designers (see Jonnasen, 1995, Barrows, 1980 and Grabinger, 1995). For Wegner, "The role of the instructor becomes one of preparing the instructional


Session F3E environment, anticipating the needs of the students in advance and providing contingencies" (104). Wegner complements Grabinger (1995), who summarizes "rich environments for active learning" (REALs) as "comprehensive instructional systems that: • Are evolving from constructivist philosophies and theories • Promote study and investigation within authentic (i.e., realistic, meaningful, relevant, complex, and information-rich) contexts • Encourage the growth of student responsibility, initiative, decision making, and intentional learning • Cultivate an atmosphere of cooperative learning among students and teachers • Utilize dynamic, generative learning activities that promote high-level thinking processes (i.e., analysis, synthesis, problem-solving, experimentation, creativity, and examination of topics from multiple perspectives) to help students integrate new knowledge with old knowledge and thereby create rich and complex knowledge structures • Assess student progres s in content and learning to learn through realistic tasks and performances." (668) REALs are environments that support problem-based learning and build on constructivist tenets by: • instilling the notion that "knowledge is not a product to be accumulated but an active process in which the learner attempts to make sense out of the world;" • promoting the idea that "people conditionalize their knowledge in personal ways”; and • stressing the "importance of collaboration and the social negotiation of meaning" (pp. 669-670). Working from the premises that PBL is a pedagogy that will become situated in an even wider variety of disciplines, and distributed education will also grow as learning demands of increasing numbers of organizations and individuals of necessity make more use of the Internet, tools that can assist individual learners in a PBL methodology employed in a web-based learning environment are necessary to develop and refine. One general methodology/environment initially designed as a computer programming and problem solving instructional tool, SOLVEIT, shares fundamental affinities with the theoretical underpinnings and substantive methodologies of both the problem-based learning approach to education and distributed education.

A PROBLEM-SOLVING ENVIRONMENT The Specification Oriented Language in Visual Environment for Instruction Translation (SOLVEIT) is an environment that provides tools to support the process of problem solving and programming (Deek, 1997) in each of the six stages that comprise it: problem formulation, planning, design,

translation, testing and delivery of the problem’s solution. While some of the tools are for general purposes and are shared by the entire SOLVEIT environment, others are associated with the specific stages of the process and are used to perform the various tasks of problem solving and program development. These tools provide support at each stage of the process (existing tools of traditional programming environments such as syntax editors, compilers, debugging utilities are used to carry out translation tasks.) The outcomes of each stage are captured and stored in a database. Students working in subsequent stages can access this database and use information relevant to the current task. Information is logged to a text recorder where it is maintained for access during and after the problem solving session. SOLVEIT encourages students to understand the problem and its requirements and to think about possible solutions before engaging in implementation details. Specific features of this environment are: • Users are able to describe the problem in written form, refine it, and update it as required. • Problem facts are identified through a formal interaction and elicitation process. • Planning and design are aided with automation. • Required code is translated into programming language syntax after problem is solved. • The solution testing is facilitated by a series of interactions between the user and the system. • An electronic project notebook and a complete transcript/playback recording are provided allowing for the delivery of a complete solution package. SOLVEIT's problem-solving methodology and tools are complementary with Nkanginieme’s (1997) for early medical education, in that each demonstrates its theoretical basis in Bloom's (1956) taxonomy and its relationship, through application, to the cognitive domain of distinct educational objectives: knowledge; comprehension; application; analysis ; synthesis ; and evaluation. Clinical diagnosis requires a physician to move sequentially through the processes and activities described in order to reach a valid diagnosis. In much the same way, computer programmers, systems analysts and software engineers follow a similar plan. SOLVEIT was designed in part based on Bloom's taxonomy (Deek, 1997). Beginning computer science students use SOLVEIT to fulfill the complex, multiple tasks of problem solving and programming. The design of SOLVEIT is such that it promotes a recursive process of re-examination and modification of programming of what otherwise would generally be thought of as a linear process of steps that accrue into an executable program and results. The "new assumptions" about teaching and learning articulated by Grabinger are addressed by the SOLVEIT design. People transfer learning with difficulty, needing


Session F3E both content and context learning. Through problem identification, formulation and articulation, SOLVEIT provides the context in which students are introduced to a subject's concepts and the problem solving heuristics to employ. Learners are active constructors of knowledge. SOLVEIT offers learners, through a series of problem decomposition steps, the ability to formulate ideas for themselves. Learning is cognitive and in a constant state of growth and evolution. Composing a problem's solution after breaking it down into sub-problem components, along with the archiving and database functions of SOLVEIT, demonstrate to the learner that the act of learning is recursive. Learners bring their own needs and experiences to learning situations. Problem formulation and solution planning, the first two stages of the SOLVEIT, draw on problem solving skills and domain knowledge that are adaptable to new situations. Skills and knowledge are best acquired within realistic contexts. SOLVEIT's tools are modeled on professional programming environment tools and put to use toward creating programs that address the needs of professional program development. Assessment must take more realistic and holistic forms. Programs derived through SOLVEIT are tested, debugged and refined for delivery to the user. Savery and Duffy's (1995, 32-34) "instructional principles deriving from constructivism" are also found within SOLVEIT's design: Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem. Students begin by engaging SOLVEIT first to decompose large problems into smaller subtasks. Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task. Each step, from problem decomposition to solution delivery is, through an interactive set of tools, open to the scrutiny of both learner and instructor; yet, through each step of the sequence, the learner takes responsibility for successful completion of the programming assignment in its entirety. Design an authentic task . Solutions formed within the SOLVEIT environment lead to executable code devised as a series of steps based on a software design and development process. Design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning. SOLVEIT was designed as a stand alone problem solving/programming environment, but when working with it in groups of students in disparate locations, the demands of problem solving take on the additional complexity of asynchronous interactivity (Deek and McHugh, 2000). Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution. Each stage of SOLVEIT’s functionality builds on the work of the preceding steps, and the learner must decide not only when to move on sequentially in the process, but also when to return to an earlier stage for possible revision. This particular recursive pattern any one student adopts contributes to a sense of mastery over the process itself. Design the learning environment to support and challenge

the learner's thinking. Throughout SOLVEIT’s stages, the learner is asked series of guiding questions, creating opportunities for innovation and revision. Encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts. SOLVEIT's planning and design stages require learners to identify, assess and choose solution alternatives before implementation criteria are selected. Provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learned and the learning process. In terms of programming instruction, the SOLVEIT environment provides the structure and the tools for learners to understand and practice employing a problem-solving methodology that translates into the ability to write code that addresses the immediate problem but also provides a more generic applicability of the process of problem-solving itself. SOLVEIT is an example of Jonassen and Reeves' (1995) point, that "the real power of computers to improve education will only be realized when students actively use them as cognitive tools rather than passively perceive them as tutors or repositories of information" (696). In addition, SOLVEIT facilitates Dillenberg and Schneider's (1995) “social-psychological mechanisms [that] make collaborative learning effective" in a distributed learning environment. Self-explanation and appropriation result from the mentored teamwork that occurs through the problemsolving activity. Verbalization occurs in each of the six stages that comprise the SOLVEIT methodology, thereby supporting internalization.

CONCLUSION SOLVEIT is an example of a tool applicable to the fundamental theories supporting problem-based learning activities as they are generally applied to disciplines and levels of education. It is also a tool that is complementary in theory and methodologies to PBL and the best principles and practices of distributed education, suggesting it to be a satisfactory tool with which to unite PBL and distributed education. As Jonassen and Reeves' (1995) write: "the real power of computers to improve education will only be realized when students actively use them as cognitive tools rather than passively perceive them as tutors or repositories of information" (696). SOLVEIT, a tool developed to conform with and enhance the cognitive activities essential to problem solving in computer programming, puts into practice much of constructivist theory and is easily transferable to asynchronous learning methodologies in a broader spectrum of disciplines. SOLVEIT is, moreover, a cognitive tool, as Jonassen and Reeves (1995) define them: unintelligent tools, relying on the learner to provide the intelligence, not the computer. This means that planning, decision making, and self-regulation are the responsibility of the learner, not the technology. Cognitive tools can serve as powerful catalysts for facilitating these skills, assuming that they are used


Session F3E in ways that promote reflection, discussion, and collaborative problem solving" (697). SOLVEIT and its taxonomy of activities, when applied within a general PBL approach in an distributed education environment, is a potentially effective methodology for problem solving in a variety of subject areas, and with modifications, the spectrum of distributed educational environments. By combining PBL, web-based distributed education and SOLVEIT, instructional designers can create active, vibrant learning environments. This combination holds benefits to students as they work in richer contexts than either those steeped in traditional classroom-based instructivist pedagogy or those supporting face-to-face PBLoriented learning.

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

[6] [7] [8] [9]

[10]

[11] [12]

[13] [14] [15]

Barrows, H. S. and Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing Co. Barrows, H. S. (1992). The T utorial Process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Barrows, H. S. (1994). Practice-Based Learning: Problem-Based Learning Applied to Medical Education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York, New York: McKay. Bourne, J. R., et al. (1997). Paradigms for On-Line Learning: A Case Study in the Design and Implementation of an Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN) Course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 38-56. Bransford, J. S. and Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Educational Research, vol. 24, pp. 61-100. Camp G. (1996). Problem-Based Learning: A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad? Medical Education Online, vol. 1, no. 2. Available [Online]: http://med-ed-online.org/f0000003.htm [November 2000]. Deek, F.P. (1997). An Integrated Environment For Problem Solving and Program Development, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, New Jersey Instit ute of Technology . Deek, F. P., Deek, M. and Friedman, R. (1999). The Virtual classroom experience: Viewpoints from computing and humanities. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 7, no. 2 & 3, pp. 113-136. Deek, F. P. and McHugh, J.A. (2000). SOLVEIT: An Experimental Environment for Problem Solving and Program Development. Journal of Applied Systems Studies, Special Issue on Distributed Multimedia Systems with Applications, in press. Dillenberg, P. and Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning in the Internet. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction, Taiwan, S10-6 to S10-13. Friedman, R., Deek, F. P., and Deek, M. (2000). Bridging technology and pedagogy: Interdisciplinary computing and composition. WebNet Journal: Internet Technologies, Applications and Issues, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 60-67. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of Learning, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L. J. and Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grabinger R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communication and T echnology , pp. 665-692. NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

[16] Greening, T. (1998). Scaffolding for success in problem-based learning, Medical Education Online vol. 3, no. 4. Available [Online]: http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000012.htm#f0000012 [November 2000]. [17] Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. and Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning, in D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp. 15-45, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. [18] Hiltz, S. R. (1997). Impacts of college -level courses via Asynchronous Learning Networks: Some preliminary results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1-19. [19] Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [20] Jonassen, D. H. and Reeves, T. C. (1995). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communication and T echnology , pp. 693-724. NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. [21] Kamin, C., Deterding, R, Wilson, B., Armacost, M., and Breedon, T . (1999). Medical Education Online. Available [Online]: http://www.Med-Ed-Online.org [November 2000]. [22] Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of learning. Journal of Higher Education, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 58-74. [23] Kenley, R. (1995). Problem based learning: Within a traditional teaching environment, AUBEA conference, University of Technology Sydney, New South Wales. Available[Online] :http://www.arbld.unimelb. edu.au /~kenley/ conf/papers/rk_a_p1.htm [December 2000]. [24] Koschmann, T. (1995). Medical education and computer literacy. Academic Medicine, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 818-821. [25] Koschman T, Glenn P, Conlee M. Analyzing the Emergence of a Learning Issue in a Problem-Based Learning Meeting. Med Educ Online [serial online] 1997;2,2. Available from: URL http://www.utmb.edu/meo/ [November 2000] [26] Mayer, R.E. (1983). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. [27] Nkanginieme, K.E. (1972). Clinical diagnosis as a dynamic cognitive process: Application of Bloom's taxonomy for educational objectives in the cognitive domain. Medical Education Online, vol. 2, no. 1. Available [Online]: http://www.Med-Ed-Online [November 2000]. [28] Robbs, J. and Meredith, S. (1994). The problem-based learning curriculum at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. [Online]: http://www.suimed.edu/pblc/pblcur .html [no longer available]. [29] Savery, J. R., Duffy, T . M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology , vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 31-37. [30] Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rational and description. Medical Education, vol. 17, pp. 11-16. [31] Walton, H. J. and M. B. Matthews. (1987). Essentials of problembased learning. Medical Education, vol. 23, pp. 542-58. [32] Wegner, S., Holloway, K and Garton E. (1999). The effect of Internet -based instruction on student learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 98-106.
